Re: [Bug-gne]Ideologies vs. Practicality in GNE

[Alexander Braun]

->I think I know what sense of ``promote'' you mean, but at what point
->does this become a rather meaningless and arbitrary distinction? When
->does this become, ``I don't like this article; it promotes harm.''?
->Does questioning accounts of Holocaust incidents ``promote''
->anti-Semitism? Does writing about the virtues of communism ``promote''
->driving over protesters with tanks? Do stories of sex with minors
->``promote'' child molesting? Are histories of serial killers
->``promoting'' murder?


imho as well bob's opinon as mike's and tom's are correct. But I did
not want to get into another discussion of "Is the publishing of child
porn material ethical correct", though I think it isn't.


I just talked about setting up some rules (sorry if my last posting
was to long to emphasize this).

Mike, to answer your question, what should considered to be harmfull
to other people:
unfortunately the holocaust-revisionism is not part of it. It's just
an opinion, historical rubbish, but still an opinion. (not even the
revisionists believe in their thesis. Just bogger them long enough and
they tell you that 50 years ago you would have been terminated
too. And then they have admitted, that they are lying)
But I give you an example of harming, which happened just a few weeks
ago: In Munich a group of skins had beaten up a Greek person. Two
Turks were helping him, so he did survive. Some days later a French
site promoted to beat up or kill these two Turks. And this is
definitely harming.
The thesis that black and white people are different is just
rubbish. But it is not harming. If the same thesis contains passages
demanding to enslave blacks again, or "at least" to beat them, kill
them or discriminate against them in any other form does harm.
The bottom line of this project is to protect freedom. We can not
protect freedom by protecting people fighting freedom.

It might be good to have a revisionist paper on GNE (if it would not
be illegal), so a good historian could show the world why this is
rubbish.

It's definitely not good to promote harm to people - that's why we
here, isn't it?

Of course you are right, that it might be a quite subjective
manner. So the only solution (imho) is to discuss some basic rules
which people have to follow, if they want to post their articles.

We did this on the technical area by preferring only-text articles
against M$-Word articles.
I can't see why the use of a non-free tool producing non-free format
should be worse than promoting to kill people. It would lead the
project ad absurdum.

GNE got it's rules about linking. it got it's rules about formats and
these rules are not only good they are necessary or otherwise we will
sit still here discussing in 20 years.
GNE is not about anarchism it's about freedom. Anarchism is not
freedom. (It might be if you got a lot of very nice people around you)

so just let's take the rules Tom made up,or the one I made up or both
and discuss them. (Personally I like Tom's rules more - they emphasize
the
same aspect but sound quite more free)

alexander